a fixed supply is neither necessary nor desirable even if it does work without the block subsidy (a separate problem).
on a social level, we still want capital to get deployed. a .5% annual supply inflation creates a slightly looser environment and is better overall for human flourishing.
"as deflationary as possible" said absolutely no economist ever.
seems like they got stuff done well on the gold standard. would you not say that was a deflationary environment?
actually Austrian economics would say that wouldn't it?
gold has 1-2% annual supply inflation.
gold has been a stable SoV for thousands of years and it is proof that a hard cap isn't necessary or good.
most of the economist that would espouse your line of thinking would say that gold is deflationary and is bad for the economy. If we had gone through all the productivity gains from automated machinery on the gold standard from the 30s to the 80s it would have almost certainly been a deflationary money as the economic output exceeded 1-2% growth. Just because it has been a SoV for that long doesn't obviously point to a harder money being bad does it?
sure, makes sense. but I didn't say there was anything wrong with deflation.
I'm just saying that setting up a permanent "as deflationary as possible" economic environment is obviously not ideal.
